Hey, listen up, you guys.

As long as Dawkins and his ilk are pontificating on the physicality of man as a physical reality they may well be on the right track. Good luck to them and all power.I happen to believe that there is a gtowth called evolutionary spirituality that goes beyond the paradigms that circumscribe their labours and which they do not understand so that is why they reject it.

When they intrude into territory they are ill-equipped to talk about they can be ignored.

socratease

The idiotic fairytale evolution explanation of origins could only strengthen the faith of any believer or thinking person. IT is the Dawkins kind of 'science' that makes so many scientist look silly. The man's dogmas will soon be replaced by the next round of god hating dogmas. You can be sure there will be no true science attached.

"As a secular humanist I am often disquieted by his unnecessary attack on people's personal beliefs."

I would once have thought so, too, examinator - until hundreds of people were murdered because of a handful of fairly mediocre cartoons.

Dawkins says he was "radicalized" by 9/11; I was personally radicalized by the Jyllands-Posten controversy. That was when I realised that religious faith ipso facto leads its believers to attack the personal beliefs of anyone who does not agree with their particular religion.

Oftentimes the "attack" is no more violent than a couple of pimply Mormons knocking on the door, or a televangelist exhorting us to repent and be saved, but the fact remains that implicit in religious faith is that the believer is right and non-believers are wrong.

While, as I said, most believers are non-violent, it is inescapable that there are many who are prepared to use violence, often appalling violence, to establish the supremacy of their worldview.

For good people to do bad things, it takes religion, indeed.

I'm more with you on the "almost nihilist/deterministic conclusion i.e. that we are the sum total of our electo-chemical responses." However, I don't think Dawkin's scientific-rationalist view necessarily leads to nihilism. For myself, I think rather as (I think) Brett Whiteley said: "there's birth and then there's death, and in between there's art".

It's the art of living that makes us human.

From the article:

<<In recent books and programs he [Dawkins] argues that resurgent movements like “intelligent design” and “astrology” masquerade as reason, debilitate scientific method and restrict science teaching.>>

And Dawkins would be right.

<<However...>>

Uh oh... I smell a Creationist...

Am I right?

<<...the picture-perfect science that Dawkins portrays is long outdated and needs serious correction to embrace science’s rich...>>

Wait for it...

<<...complexity.>>

Oooo... Yes, it looks like I might have been right after all!

<<...scientists should celebrate the success of science as Dawkins encourages. Nonetheless, as scientists we must also promote more realistically our ongoing struggle to understand and explain what it means to be scientific.>>

Considering Dawkins himself admits that discounting the supernatural entirely and stating that Gods absolutely do not exist would be unscientific, I hardly see what the Author is trying to say here.

The problem is though, that up until this date, Creationists have absolutely nothing to support their arguments.

<<...in disregarding its [science’s] limitations in the fashion of Dawkins we assure only that science stagnates without hope of improvement. >>

Aside from the fact that this author has completely misrepresented Dawkins from the word “go”, has the current method ever failed us?

In other words: “If it ain’t broke, why fix it?”

Mr Baker makes it sound like we’ve hit a dead end in science and the only way to overcome it is to introduce the possibility of the supernatural.

Examinator,

<< Dawkins tends to overstate his position as a campaign for atheism by allowing his topic to be overwhelmed by saleable evangelistic zeal/controversy. >>

And for good reason too: Consciousness raising.

<<Thus leading us to almost nihilist/deterministic conclusion i.e. that we are the sum total of our electo-chemical responses. >>

Since, on a scientific level, that’s all we can rationally conclude our conciousness to be, what’s wrong with that?

It doesn’t mean that we, as individuals, can’t find a “spiritual” side to life or find meaning. Dawkins, presents himself, first and foremost, as a scientist and rationalist.

Continued...

...Continued

He doesn’t pretend to try to give a deeper meaning to the lives of those who read his books.

<< Conversely the Human CONTEXT allows for complexity well beyond our comprehension.
Every new discovery adds another layer of complexity(questions) to be answered. >>

I may be reading you wrong here, but I don’t think that’s the “complexity” Mr Baker was (secretly) referring to. If it was, then he is making a lot of baseless assumptions about Dawkins.

Remember, since the crushing defeat Creationists suffered at the Dover trial, they’ve been increasingly quiet and sneaky about the way they introduce religion into the science classroom.

Their new tactic is to cry “Academic Freedom”. Heck, they’re now trying to get laws passed in the US so that if a student answers a question on a science test that adheres to their religious beliefs, then the teacher needs to mark it right.

I’m possibly being too presumptuous, but I grew suspicious of Mr Baker when I looked through his past articles and read this remark...

“It’s through flexibility and diversity, not blind adherence to rules, that we can best ensure educational freedom in today’s students and open-mindedness in tomorrow’s leaders.”

Educational freedom?

Sorry, but the guy is a creationist in disguise.

I wondered where you partial support for the author came from, then I read this...

<< As a secular humanist I am often disquieted by his unnecessary attack on people's personal beliefs. >>

Ahhhh... That’s where!

Sorry, but as Dawkins has said before, religion has had a free ride for too long.

It’s time religion was out in its place considering the damage it’s caused, the religious (moderate or not) need to understand that their beliefs are no longer immune from criticism. Not to mention the out-dated tax-free status that religions enjoy for no good reason.

Moderate religious believers are often beautiful people, but their passive support is what keeps the loonies on the streets and in power, and the claim that we can’t question or criticize their faith simply because it’s their faith is reckless.

<<Copernicus and Galileo needed to step outside the confines of logic to bolster support for their theories within the science community.>>

Yes, the imagination is needed to examine possibilities and probabilities in order to test them, that is all part of science. Where is Andrew suggesting they go when they “step outside”?

<< as scientists we must also promote more realistically our ongoing struggle to understand and explain what it means to be scientific>>, otherwise we run the risk of science stagnating << without hope of improvement.>>.

It is to be hoped that scientists do know what it is to be scientists, why should they need an explanation? unless of course, Andrew actually means his own “alternative explanation”.

<<“Evolution is accepted as scientific fact by all reputable scientists”. However, a theory like evolution may be composed of facts but it must always extend beyond logical boundaries into the unknown - such are the “facts” of logic on which science rests.>>

What is this “unknown” into which science must extend? Surely that is where imagination already meets proof?

<< we need to engage face-to-face with the general public in genuine dialogue about the nature and processes of science so that they can make informed judgments on the issues raised by protagonists like Dawkins.>>

Why? I don’t need to be involved or “shown the light” on Boeings’ 787 Dreamliner. I am willing to rely on engineers to prove their design. I would not however, fly in one if they used “scientific consensus” or “theology” to build it.

If Andrew Baker is willing to accept that his brain is not the product an evolutionary process, I hope he has a “lemon law warranty” on the one he has.

This is another tricky piece that seeks to soften and control science by attaching “theological attributes” that can be influenced by mystics. Theology it seems, is still seeking to influence scientists and to label them as heretics. How pathetic.